 |
 |
American Islamic Wacko Kills 13... (Page 7)
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 
I'm going to say that all religions are equally twistable, because, in my opinion, that is the entire point of religion: to be twistable such that the believer is able to use their god to justify acts that would normally be considered wrong.
I think that's a pretty lofty claim. I'm going to assume that you're not religious, based on what you've said. It then also follows that you view religion as a man-made creation. Thus, "the point" of religion would then have to refer directly to the creator's intent.
Claiming that the sole intent ("entire point") of everyone who founded every belief system in the history of the world did so for the singular purpose of justifying what would normally be considered wrong takes... well, a leap of faith. How can you get into all of their heads? This would also imply that every person who practices religion has this same sole and explicit purpose, and I'm going to have to call that total BS. You are in no position to dictate to me what my motives for practicing religion are (or for that matter those of anyone else), so I hope that's not what you really believe.
Furthermore, what defines "what would normally be considered wrong?" Who sets this "normal?" Is there some fundamental preexisting morality? From whence does it come? Do you not prescribe to the notion of moral relativity? In which case "normal" would vary from person to person, from moment to moment? Could not "normal" be defined by the very person making the decision (in the absence of a higher being to definite it for them)? Why would one invent a means by which they could twist morals which they themselves define?
|
"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'll point out for Wikedjak that he amended that claim to one that was more defensible, at least from a non-believer's standpoint.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
However, there are problems with relying on the plain reading. I don't know if you're a Hebrew scholar or what level you understand Biblical Hebew, but may be relying on a translation, and some translations are poorer than others. For example, I can easily point you out a number of wrongly translated words in the KJV, sometimes just inaccurate and inconsistent translations and other times purposeful mistranslations used to impute Christian theology where it does not exist. Maybe modern Christian translations are better - I don't know for sure because I've only looked at the KJV in relation to the Hebrew and kosher Hebrew translations.
Oh, the KJV is horrible. When I started studying the original languages, I was very embarrassed that I'd ever used that mess of a translation. Modern Bibles like the NIV are much better, though still not perfect.
Originally Posted by Big Mac
But anyway, if you don't know what the underlying text is saying, how do you know your simple meaning/understanding is accurate?
That's true, but then going and trying to pull more meaning from the questionable translation just compounds the problem. Imprecise translations should make people more wary of going off into far-flung interpretations.
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Aside from translation problems, Judaism recognizes a body of divine instruction as well as an accumulated store of divine knowledge through the historical application of the Torah - the Oral Torah/the Talmud. We do not study the written Torah isolated by itself. Within that body of accompanying knowledge, there are some clear rules of Scriptural exegesis that are logical and obvious and aid in understanding the text in logical ways. I refer specifically to the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael as one example.
That really doesn't bother me. I don't think a religion has to depend just on one text. But if you do claim to do so, then you need to be honest about what it actually says and how you take your teachings from it. Otherwise, "interpretation" usually means "eisegesis."
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
...the entire point of religion: to be twistable such that the believer is able to use their god to justify acts that would normally be considered wrong.
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
... *few* will interpret that text in order to justify horrible acts...
Sorry to double post, but I somehow missed this comment before.
So if the sole purpose of religion is to justify wrongdoing, why is it that only few Muslims will interpret the Koran to justify wrongdoing?
EDIT: Big Mac--I saw that, but I wasn't sure if it was a total negation of his initial statement... if we want to talk about methods of control... well that could be its own thread altogether...
|
"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Btw, Chuckit, I didn't mean to be condescending before. I may come off that way to you at times, but you're one of the few moderates I have respect for around here. 
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
No it doesn't.
Leviticus?
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interesting if true...
Now we have a little insight into why Obama said to not jump to conclusions about Nidal Hasan.
This man who killed and wounded the people at Fort Hood, Texas was an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security Transition team.
Look on page 29 of the Homeland Security Institute link below. You'll need to scroll way down.
http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_P...t_05.19.09.PDF
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
He was a participant, not an "advisor." This sort of panel often makes use of people who are handy and who could provide information that "typical" appointees and officials could not. Hasan was there in the DC area at the time, and is a Muslim; the panel probably asked him to talk about his religion or something about the culture in Palestine where his parents came from. No junior officer that's still in acquisition training (medical folks are considered "new hires" until they actually finish all of their training, no matter how high they rank) is ever going to rate being asked to "advise" anyone in DC.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top